Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Smith v. Chappell, 148 So. 242.

51 citing documents.

Willson v. UNOPENED SUCCESSION OF DAVIS 832 So. 2d 360 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
311, ; Fair v. Williams, 187 La.
Humphrey v. St. Louis 492 So. 2d 220 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Nugent v. Franks 471 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
Freeman v. Williams 450 So. 2d 1030 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Mitchell v. Clark 448 So. 2d 681 La. 1984
Mitchell v. Clark 431 So. 2d 817 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
Stutts v. Humphries 408 So. 2d 940 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
Cheramie v. Cheramie 380 So. 2d 166 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Snow v. MacDonnell 378 So. 2d 611 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Voisin v. Luke 341 So. 2d 6 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Custom Financing of Bossier City, Inc. v. Williams 340 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Pure Oil Company v. Skinner 294 So. 2d 797 La. 1974
The traditional rule to be applied here, and what is meant by "make out his title", , 148 So.
Clampitt v. Davis Brothers Lumber Co. 266 So. 2d 248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Clark v. Lee 221 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
Tidewater Oil Co. v. Bihm 220 So. 2d 507 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
Distinguished Spinks v. Brown 216 So. 2d 856 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1968
Thompson v. Frazier 184 So. 2d 283 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
Plaintiff then had no interest in investigating defendant’s title.” In Smith v. Chappell (1933) , 148 So.
Vallee v. Vallee 180 So. 2d 570 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
Union Bank v. Roy 182 So. 2d 319 La. 1965
Article 1955 of the Civil Code provides that “All clauses of agreements are interpreted the one by the other, giving to each the sense that results from the entire act.” , 148 So.
Walker v. Jim Austin Motor Company 162 So. 2d 135 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
328 ; Smith v. Chappel [Chappell], , 148 So.
Chenevert v. Lemoine 161 So. 2d 85 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
Slater v. Eckhardt 160 So. 2d 796 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
Plaintiffs also cite the principle that “ * * * a general description which manifestly was intended to be a summing up of the intention of the parties” controls, , 148 So.
Francois v. Cloud 149 So. 2d 678 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1963
711 ); that in a petitory action plaintiff must make out his case on the strength of his own title and not on the weakness of defendant's title ( , 148 So.
Chauvin v. LeBlanc 148 So. 2d 182 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Burt v. Valois 144 So. 2d 196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Article 44 former Code of Practice, A. M. Edwards Co., Inc. et al. v. Dunnington, La.App., ; , 148 So.
Phillips v. West 144 So. 2d 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Campbell v. Thomas 140 So. 2d 163 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Champagne v. Lepine 130 So. 2d 753 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
328 ; Smith v. Chappel [Chappell], , 148 So.
Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Texas & New Orleans R. Co. 127 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
1023 ; Smith v. Chappell, 1933, , 148 So.
Resweber v. Jacob 125 So. 2d 241 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1960
Blackwell v. Nagy 122 So. 2d 903 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
292 , 297.” ‡ ^ # “Smith v. Chappell, 1933, , 148 So.
Boudreaux v. Shadyside Co. 111 So. 2d 891 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
93 , ); other lot lines of the subdivision which were unquestioned ( , 148 So.
Merritt v. Hays 111 So. 2d 771 La. 1959
Blevins v. Manufacturers Record Publishing Co. 105 So. 2d 392 La. 1958
Agurs v. Holt 95 So. 2d 644 La. 1957
Agurs v. Holt 95 So. 2d 644 La. 1957
D'Asaro v. Knop 78 So. 2d 852 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1955
Albritton v. Childers 74 So. 2d 156 La. 1954
Dupre v. Dupre 72 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
Dane & Northrop v. Selzer 63 So. 2d 760 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
Curry v. Henry 29 So. 2d 808 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
Brulatour v. Teche Sugar Co. 25 So. 2d 444 La. 1946
clerical error, almost patent in the description of land contained in the deed, as also to explain lurking ambiguities., to identify the property, to prove fraud practiced in the transfer of land, to show possession, to show boundaries, is no infringement of the rule which demands that title to real estate be evidenced in writing only.” , 148 So.
Plaquemines Oil & Development Co. v. State 23 So. 2d 171 La. 1945
Dugas v. Powell 1 So. 2d 677 La. 1941
In such action the judge is called upon to decide which of the claimants is the owner of the land in dispute.” , 148 So.
Snelling v. Adair 199 So. 782 La. 1940
Harrill v. Pitts 193 So. 562 La. 1940
648, 650 ; the court said: “The law does not require that a deed, to support the prescription of 10 years, shall contain such ■ a description that the land can be identified without reference to other records.” , 148 So.
Williams v. James 178 So. 384 La. 1938
Cook v. Martin 178 So. 881 La. 1938
Fair v. Williams 172 So. 393 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Simmons v. Carter 172 So. 425 La. 1937